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 ****** 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.
