Please read the accident report. In particular:
(b) Criticism of de Havillands' design work
116. Dealing first with the period prior to the commencement of the scheduled passenger service on the 2nd May, 1952, the calculations made by de Havillands were criticised and it was suggested that the tests they carried out were inadequate to guard against the risk of fatigue in the cabin structure. In support of this contention particular reference was made to certain calculations included in paragraph 4 of Part 3 of the R.A.E. Report and to other calculations produced by Sir Arnold Hall in the course of his evidence. It is, however, to be observed that the primary object of de Havillands was to lay the foundation for extensive tests which they regarded as the soundest basis for the development of a project rather than to arrive at a precise assessment of the stress distribution at the corners of the cabin windows.
117. I do not think that they can justly be criticised for this approach to the problem. In arriving, at this conclusion I have been assisted by a Memorandum which has been prepared for me by my Assessors and which confirms the impression I formed from the evidence of the witnesses that de Havillands were proceeding in accordance with what was then regarded as good engineering practice. I am also satisfied that in the then state of knowledge de Havillands cannot be blamed for not making greater use of strain gauges than they actually did or for believing, that the static test that they proposed to apply would, if successful, give the necessary assurance against the risk of fatigue during the working life of the aircraft. The Memorandum to which I have referred is included as paragraphs 118 to 129 of this Report.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
My answers to the questions submitted on behalf of the Attorney-General are as follows:_
Question 1
What was the cause of the accident?
Answer.
The cause of the accident was the structural failure of the pressure cabin brought about by fatigue. See para. 95.
Question 2.
If several factors caused the accident what were such factors and to what extent was each contributory?
Answer.
This does not arise.
Question 3.
Was the accident due to the act or default or negligence of any party or of any person in the employment of that party?
Answer.
The accident was not due to the wrongful act or default or to the negligence of any party or of any person in the employment of any party.
Official accident report of Comet I G-ALYP