That there is an element of danger in aviation is undeniable, but it is
nowhere so great as the public imagines. Men are killed and injured in
the operation of flying machines just as they are killed and injured
in the operation of railways. Considering the character of aviation the
percentage of casualties is surprisingly small.
This is because the results following a collapse in the air are very
much different from what might be imagined. Instead of dropping to the
ground like a bullet an aeroplane, under ordinary conditions will, when
anything goes wrong, sail gently downward like a parachute, particularly
if the operator is cool-headed and nervy enough to so manipulate the
apparatus as to preserve its equilibrium and keep the machine on an even
keel.
Two Fields of Safety.
At least one prominent aviator has declared that there are two fields
of safety--one close to the ground, and the other well up in the air. In
the first-named the fall will be a slight one with little chance of the
operator being seriously hurt. From the field of high altitude the the
descent will be gradual, as a rule, the planes of the machine serving to
break the force of the fall. With a cool-headed operator in control the
aeroplane may be even guided at an angle (about 1 to 8) in its descent
so as to touch the ground with a gliding motion and with a minimum of
impact.
Such an experience, of course, is far from pleasant, but it is by no
means so dangerous as might appear. There is more real danger in falling
from an elevation of 75 or 100 feet than there is from 1,000 feet, as
in the former case there is no chance for the machine to serve as a
parachute--its contact with the ground comes too quickly.
Lesson in Recent Accidents.
Among the more recent fatalities in aviation are the deaths of Antonio
Fernandez and Leon Delagrange. The former was thrown to the ground by a
sudden stoppage of his motor, the entire machine seeming to collapse. It
is evident there were radical defects, not only in the motor, but in the
aeroplane framework as well. At the time of the stoppage it is
estimated that Fernandez was up about 1,500 feet, but the machine got
no opportunity to exert a parachute effect, as it broke up immediately.
This would indicate a fatal weakness in the structure which, under
proper testing, could probably have been detected before it was used in
flight.
It is hard to say it, but Delagrange appears to have been culpable to
great degree in overloading his machine with a motor equipment much
heavier than it was designed to sustain. He was 65 feet up in the air
when the collapse occurred, resulting in his death. As in the case of
Fernandez common-sense precaution would doubtless have prevented the
fatality.
Aviation Not Extra Hazardous.
All told there have been, up to the time of this writing (April, 1910),
just five fatalities in the history of power-driven aviation. This is
surprisingly low when the nature of the experiments, and the fact that
most of the operators were far from having extended experience, is taken
into consideration. Men like the Wrights, Curtiss, Bleriot, Farman,
Paulhan and others, are now experts, but there was a time, and it was
not long ago, when they were unskilled. That they, with numerous
others less widely known, should have come safely through their many
experiments would seem to disprove the prevailing idea that aviation is
an extra hazardous pursuit.
In the hands of careful, quick-witted, nervy men the sailing of an
airship should be no more hazardous than the sailing of a yacht. A
vessel captain with common sense will not go to sea in a storm, or
navigate a weak, unseaworthy craft. Neither should an aviator attempt to
sail when the wind is high and gusty, nor with a machine which has not
been thoroughly tested and found to be strong and safe.
Safer Than Railroading.
Statistics show that some 12,000 people are killed and 72,000 injured
every year on the railroads of the United States. Come to think it over
it is small wonder that the list of fatalities is so large. Trains
are run at high speeds, dashing over crossings at which collisions are
liable to occur, and over bridges which often collapse or are swept away
by floods. Still, while the number of casualties is large, the actual
percentage is small considering the immense number of people involved.
It is so in aviation. The number of casualties is remarkably small in
comparison with the number of flights made. In the hands of competent
men the sailing of an airship should be, and is, freer from risk of
accident than the running of a railway train. There are no rails
to spread or break, no bridges to collapse, no crossings at which
collisions may occur, no chance for some sleepy or overworked employee
to misunderstand the dispatcher's orders and cause a wreck.
Two Main Causes of Trouble.
The two main causes of trouble in an airship leading to disaster may
be attributed to the stoppage of the motor, and the aviator becoming
rattled so that he loses control of his machine. Modern ingenuity is
fast developing motors that almost daily become more and more reliable,
and experience is making aviators more and more self-confident in their
ability to act wisely and promptly in cases of emergency. Besides this
a satisfactory system of automatic control is in a fair way of being
perfected.
Occasionally even the most experienced and competent of men in all
callings become careless and by foolish action invite disaster. This
is true of aviators the same as it is of railroaders, men who work in
dynamite mills, etc. But in nearly every instance the responsibility
rests with the individual; not with the system. There are some men
unfitted by nature for aviation, just as there are others unfitted to be
railway engineers.