CHAPTER XV – Flying Machines Construction And Operation

In “The Element of Danger,” Chapter XV of “Flying Machines: Construction and Operation,” the narrative addresses the perceived risks attached to early aviation, debunking myths of excessive danger whilst acknowledging the inherent risks involved. The chapter compares aviation casualties to those of railway operations, suggesting that, relative to its novelty and the nature of flight, aviation’s casualty rate is surprisingly low. This comparison is aimed at providing perspective, highlighting both the progressiveness and the challenges of flight.

The text elucidates on how an aeroplane, contrary to popular belief, does not plummet like a bullet in case of malfunction; instead, it is designed to glide downward, somewhat like a parachute, provided the operator maintains composure and skillfully manages the craft to stabilize its descent. This capability for controlled descent introduces the concept of “two fields of safety” — one at lower altitudes with minimal fall distance, and another at higher altitudes where there’s sufficient space to reduce velocity and angle the aircraft for a softer landing.

Specific case studies, such as the fatal incidents involving aviators Antonio Fernandez and Leon Delagrange, serve as cautionary tales emphasizing the importance of thorough testing and adherence to design specifications. These examples underline the fatal consequences of neglecting safety precautions, such as overloading or operating with structural defects.

Despite these incidents, the chapter positions aviation as not excessively hazardous, especially in the hands of experienced and prudent operators. It provides a historical overview of aviation’s fatalities up to April 1910, indicating that the fatalities were few, considering the experimental nature of early flights and the limited experience of most aviators at the time.

The chapter concludes by advocating for responsible aviation, likening it to responsible seafaring. Just as a wise captain wouldn’t sail in a storm or with an unseaworthy vessel, aviators are counseled against flying under adverse conditions or with untested equipment. This analogy extends to a comparative analysis of railway and aviation accidents, asserting that with appropriate precautions, aviation could be considered safer than railroading, given the vast difference in annual casualties.