INVESTIGATION OF DIRIGIBLE DISASTERS MONDAY, MAY 22, 1933 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE Washington, D.C. The joint committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 2 p.m., in the committee room of the Committee on the District of Columbia, Capitol Building, Senator William H. King (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators King, Walsh, Duffy, Kean; Representatives Delaney (vice chairman), McSwain, Harter, Andrew, and Hope. Present also: Colonel Henry Breckinridge. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The joint committee of the House and the Senate, consisting of 5 Members of the Senate and 5 Members of the House, has been appointed to make an investigation into certain matters, and to consider data and information described or referred to in the concurrent resolution, copy of which will be inserted in the record at this point. (The resolution is here printed in full as follows:) [H.Con. Res. 15, Seventy-third Congress, first session] Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That there is hereby created a joint committee to consist of five Members of the Senate, to be appointed by the President of the Senate, and five Members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The committee shall select its own chairman. Such committee is hereby authorized and directed to investigate the cause, or causes of the wreck of the Navy dirigible Akron and the wrecks of other Army and Navy dirigibles, to fix responsibility for the same, to inquire generally into the question of the utility of dirigibles in the military and naval establishments, and to make recommendations to the Senate and House of Representatives with respect to the future use of dirigibles for military or naval purposes. The committee shall report to the Senate and House of Representatives as soon as practicable the results of its investigations, together with its recommendations. For the purpose of this resolution the committee, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions or recesses of the present Congress, to employ such experts, clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths and affirmations, to take testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures as it deems advisable, not exceeding $5,000, one half of said amount to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate and one half out of the contingent fund of the House. Subpenas shall be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee and shall be served by any person designated by him. The provisions of sections 102, 103, and 104 of the Revised Statutes shall be applicable to any person summoned as a witness under the authority of this resolution in the same manner as such provisions are applicable to any person summoned as a witness in the case of an inquiry before a committee of either House. 1 The CHAIRMAN Colae Erendre was appointed by the committee & ouden to wit in the TTDIC A quorum of the committee is Low present, mesing Coutte Breckinridge, and the committee will call upon Corona Brenanige to proceed, and we will ask him to present to the cominee sath information as for the moment he has ready to bring our medic. Colonel BRECKENRIDGE. Mr. Chizman, 1 ofer for the record a communication from the Judge Advocate General of the Navy to the chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee to investigate the Akron disaster. This letter transmits copies of findings of facts and opinions of the US.S. Akron court of inclary, with endorsement and final action of the Secretary of the Navy thereon. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion that they should be incorporated, in extenso in the record? Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Simply the findings and the recommendations of higher authority; it is not so extensive. The vast record of nearly 500 typewritten pages I do not offer, because, for all practical purposes, we have that incorporated by reference, any time we wish to refer to it, but I think that this is a succinct report. The CHAIRMAN. It will be received. (The report is as follows:) Hon. WILLIAM H. KING, NAVY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Chairman Joint Congressional Committee to Investigate "Akron" Disaster, MY DEAR SENATOR: In accordance with the direction of the Secretary of the Navy I am forwarding you herewith copies of the findings of facts and opinions of the U.S.S. Akron court of inquiry with endorsements and the final action of the Secretary of the Navy thereon. A complete copy of the record of testimony adduced before this court of inquiry has been furnished Mr. William M. Galvin, assistant to Col. Henry Breckinridge, counsel for your joint committee. The papers forwarded herewith will make this record complete. Sincerely yours, [Fifth endorsement] From: The Secretary of the Navy. O. G. MURFIN, Judge Advocate General. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, May 17, 1933. To: The Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Subject: Court of inquiry convened by order of the Secretary of the Navy to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the loss of the U.S.S. Akron off Barnegat Inlet, N.J., on April 4, 1933. 1. From the evidence adduced in the attached case, the deaths of all officers and enlisted men of the United States Navy, whose names are listed in paragraph 23 of the findings of facts, are held to have occurred in line of duty and not to have been the result of their own misconduct. 2. The injuries to Richard E. Deal, boatswain's mate, second class, United States Navy, referred to in paragraph 24 of the findings of facts, are held to have been sustained in line of duty and not as a result of his own misconduct. 3. Subject to the above remarks and to the remarks of the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics and the Chief of Naval Operations, the proceedings, findings and recommendations of the court of inquiry in the attached case are approved. 4. Return record to the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Copy to: Chief of the Bureau of Navigation. CLAUDE A. SWANSON. 5. Subject to the foregoing, and to the remarks of the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics in his second indorsement hereunder, the Chief of Naval Operations recommends approval of the proceedings, findings, opinions, and recommendations of the court of inquiry in the attached case. [Fourth endorsement] W. V. PRATT. MAY 15, 1933. From: Chief of Naval Operations. To: Judge Advocate General. Subject: Court of inquiry convened by order of the Secretary of the Navy to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the loss of the U.S.S. Akron off Barnegat Inlet, N.J., on April 4, 1933. 1. The Chief of Naval Operations considers that opinion no. 5 and opinion no. 8 of the court of inquiry are not consistent and concurs in opinion no. 8 rather than opinion no. 5. 2. Opinion no. 5, briefly, is that the commanding officer committed an error in judgment in not setting such courses as would have kept him in the safe semicircle. Opinion no. 8 very well suggests the viewpoint that the court, lacking more than slight direct knowledge of the considerations on which the commanding officer's decisions were based, cannot assume that the information available to him did not justify his actions; therefore, opinion that judgment was erroneous is actually based almost entirely, if not solely, on the light of subsequent events. 3. The Chief of Naval Operations concurs with this latter viewpoint. In tracing the course of events that have led up to any disaster, it is usually true that analysis after the event will indicate some point at which a different course of action would have averted the catastrophe. In this case, in the light of information now available after the event, it appears probable that the course of action suggested in Opinion No. 5 would have done so. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the commanding officer failed to exercise good judgment in the light of the information available to him at the time. 4. The Akron was ably built and unquestionably ably handled to the full limit of present knowledge and experience in rigid airship operation. No reflection, therefore, should attach to her commanding officer for his choice, in his best judgment, of the course of action that was followed under these particular storm conditions during the natural and normal military operations of a rigid airship. [Third endorsement] From: Chief of the Bureau of Navigation. To: Secretary of the Navy (Judge Advocate General). Via: Chief of Naval Operations. MAY 12, 1933. Subject: Court of inquiry convened by order of the Secretary of the Navy, to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the loss of the U.S.S. Akron, off Barnegat Inlet, N.J., on April 4, 1933. 1. Forwarded, recommending approval of the proceedings, findings, opinion, and recommendation of the court of inquiry in the attached case. [Second endorsement] F. B. UPHAM. MAY 11, 1933. From: The Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics. To: The Chief of Naval Operations. Via: The Chief of the Bureau of Navigation. Subject: Court of inquiry convened by order of the Secretary of the Navy, to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the loss of the U.S.S. Akron off Barnegat Inlet, N.J., on April 4, 1933. 1. Forwarded in accordance with the first endorsement. 2. The Bureau of Aeronautics (a) Concurs in the foregoing findings of fact, but notes the uncertainty of the evidence as to compliance with the requirements regarding life-saving equipment. (b) Concurs in the foregoing opinions, and singles out for special notice these opinions which deal with the decisions made with regard to courses steered and the consequent placing of the Akron relative to the unfavorable weather conditions: (1) Whose existence and location were first known on board the Akron at about 8:30 p.m. (2) Whose character and development were definitely indicated shortly after 10 p.m. from the partial weather map compiled on board the Akron. (3) And for confirmation of which there was available at all times visual observations from the Akron herself. (c) Concurs in the recommendation that no further proceedings (in inquiry) be had in the matter. 3. To sum up, it clearly appears: (a) That the design, construction, and maneuverability of the Akron were adequate to the point of excellence. (b) That the material condition of the Akron was excellent at the time of takeoff on April 3, 1933. (c) That the personnel were competent and efficient in their capacity to handle the airship. (d) That there is need to recognize the fact that it is essential, in their present state of design, construction, and operation, that airships should avoid bad weather (storm) areas, and, (e) That there is need to increase the capacity of operating personnel to obtain, recognize, and interpret bad weather (storm) conditions and the consequent proper placing of such ships relative to bad weather (storm) areas, not only from weather data supplied to the ship, but from first-hand observations on board the ship herself. 4. The Bureau of Aeronautics has definitely in mind measures suitable to accomplish the matters set forth in paragraphs 3 (d) and (e) above and will, in separate correspondence, make suitable recommendations in regard thereto. E. J. KING, Rear Admiral United States Navy, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Washington, D.C., May 10, 1933. From: To the Judge Advocate General. Subject: Court of inquiry convened by order of the Secretary of the Navy to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the loss of the U.S.S. Akron off Barnegat Inlet, N.J., on April 4, 1933. 1. Forwarded for consideration and recommendation. 2. The proceedings, findings, opinion, and recommendation of the court of inquiry in the attached case are, in the opinion of this office, legal. O. G. MURFIN. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. The U.S.S. Akron was designed by the Goodyear-Zeppelin Corporation of Akron, Ohio, the design having been selected as the winning design in an open competition of the Navy Department. 2. This airship was built by Goodyear-Zeppelin Corporation, Akron, Ohio, was completed and made its first flight on September 23, 1931, and later commissioned as the U.S.S. Akron. 3. The design of the Akron provided larger factors of safety then were provided in any previous rigid airship and lessons learned from the destruction of the U.S.S. Shenandoah and the British R-101 were incorporated in its final structure. 4. The Akron had, prior to her last flight, suffered casualties on three separate occasions, namely, February 22, 1932, damage to tail structure including lower fin; on flight to West Coast in June 1932, two intermediate ring girders slightly buckled; and in August 1932 damage to the lower fin while being handled on the field. The ship was thoroughly and effectively repaired after these accidents. 5. The last flight of the Akron was regularly authorized and was for the purpose of training and of calibrating radio compass stations in the first naval district. 6. At time of take off on April 3, 1933, the Akron was fully and properly manned and equipped, in material readiness for flight and with no unauthorized persons on board. 7. Prior to January 3, 1933, the Akron made 58 flights totaling 1,274.3 hours, including a flight to the west coast of the United States. Since the late Comdr. Frank C. McCord, United States Navy, assumed command on January 3, 1933, |