Notes

Abstract

THE report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Aviation (Cmd. 770, price 2d.), dealing with the question of Government assistance for the development of civil aviation, will be read with interest by those who are concerned in the commercial future of the aeroplane. The report considers at length the present position of civil aviation and the results which have been achieved, and reaches the conclusion thatas regards both the progress of commercial flying and the maintenance of a healthy aeronautical industry the indirect assistance given in the past is insufficient. Definite proposals for direct assistance are made. It is suggested that such assistance should be limited to a sum of 250,000l. within the two financial years 1920–22, and calculated on a basis of 25 per cent. of the total revenue of the aviation companies concerned, without differentiation as to the nature of the load carried by the machines. “Approved” routes are suggested: (a) London to Paris, with extensions; (b) London to Brussels, with extensions; and (c) a route such as England to Scandinavia, giving opportunities for the development of seaplane and “amphibious” machines. Air-Marshal Sir Hugh M. Trenchard criticises this policy in a minority report. He considers that the Committee is not justified in its assertion that commercial aviation has hitherto been a failure, and expresses the view that there has not yet been sufficient time for the advantages of aerial transport to be appreciated widely and so to create the necessary demand. He further considers the policy of subsidies to be fundamentally unsound, and thinks the money would be better spent in encouraging the design of experimental machines and in helping forward general research on aeronautical questions—a view for which there is much to be said. Assuming the subsidy to be granted, however, Sir Hugh agrees with the mode of application suggested by the majority report.